Another Pyrrhic Victory in the Pointless "War on Drugs"

Mexico's ruling elite, the US Government, and the dwindling band of hardy drug war aficionados in the global law enforcement community all noted with great satisfaction last week's re-arrest, after 13 years on the lam, of Joaquin Guzman Loera, aka "El Chapo," purportedly that country's leading illegal drug trafficker.

Interestingly, the arrest is not quite so popular with ordinary Mexicans, many of whom view "El Chapo" as a kind of Robin Hood figure, far more generous, talented, and simpatico, and also not necessarily any more corrupt or ruthless than the run-of-the mill political vermin, police thugs, and corrupt Army generals they have to put up with. At least he does not require huge protection bribes and wasteful tax subsidies.

From the perspective of investigative economics, of course we relish the drama of a J. Dillinger-type "most wanted" track down as much as the next fella. But the notion that this single arrest, or in fact any number of such arrests, will put even the slightest crimp in the global business of international drug trafficking is ludicrous.

The bottom line? None of this has made one bit of measurable difference whatsoever to the overall long-run global supply or consumption of illegal drugs. Indeed, if anything, the real street prices of so-called "dangerous drugs" like cocaine, crack, heroin, and meth are much lower today than they were in the early 1980s, before the drug war escalated.

Meanwhile, the demand for legalby-prescription drugs has gone through the roof. According to a recent Mayo Clinic survey, an estimated 70 percent of Americans now use them regularly, including about 13 percent who regularly use anti-depressants and another 13 percent on opiates and other pain killers.

According to the Center for Disease Control, in 2010, a modest 244 American deaths were attributed to "mental and behavioral disorders due to cocaine use," 204 died from "mental and behavioral disorders due to opiods," including heroin,1174 died from such disorders associated with "multiple drug use," legal and illegal, and no one died from mental or behavioral disorders associated with marijuana.

By comparison, 6466 died that year because of mental and behavioral disorders due to alcohol, 334 died from disorders due to tobacco (in addition to those claimed by lung cancer), 96 died from disorders due to caffeine, 32,113 died because of accidental poisoning by drugs or alcohol, and 5,333 died because of intentional self-poisoning by drugs or alcohol -- mostly due to overdoses with prescription drugs.

So do we have a drug problem in the US? Indeed we do. But it is not one that has very much to do with Mexico, Colombia, Bolivia, Peru, or Afghanistan. Nor is it one that "breaking up cartels" -- and thereby necessarily (uh, duh) increasing competition and supply from illicit traffickers -- or clogging our prison and probation system with convicted traffickers is ever going to solve.

Can someone please explain to US and Mexican law enforcement -- as well as to New York Times journalists -- the basic laws of Microeconomics 101? When you "break up a cartel," you increase competition, boost supply, lower market price, and increase the number of traffickers involved in the business.

Indeed, that's what has happened after each and every one of the law enforcement "victories" noted above. The recent re-arrest of "El Chapo" Guzman, as good as it may be for the professional careers of a few police, federal agents, and politicians -- as well as rival cartel leaders -- will prove to be no exception.

Of course the illegal drug business earns above-average returns for dealers and their families. That's what happens when you try to outlaw a product that is fundamentally a commodity. But the real key to the longevity of our mindless drug laws, despite centuries of evidence that they are counterproductive, is political economy: the fact that this industry is also lucrative and power-enhancing, as well as endlessly self-righteous, for key law enforcement agencies and the politicians who support them. It is time to end this perverse co-dependency.